Overrating Outrage in Obama’s Response to Paris Attacks

Luther, the satirical “anger translator” played by Keegan-Michael Key, with President Obama at the White House Correspondents Dinner in April.CreditPool photo by Olivier Douliery

By Brendan Nyhan

Nov. 18, 2015

With all the reporting and commentary thatfaulted President Obama for not displayingmore anger at his news conference Monday on the Paris attacks, it almost seemed as if people hoped he would bring back Luther, the satirical “anger translator” played by Keegan-Michael Key who appeared alongside him at the White House Correspondents Dinner in April.

Displays of emotion have become an expected ritual in the age of the televised presidency, but President Obama has often been reluctant to reveal how he feels after major events. This pattern goes back to the very beginning of his time in office. In March 2009, media reports criticized him for lacking visible emotion during a news conference in which he explicitly said he was angry about bonuses paid by American International Group after a taxpayer-funded bailout. He was again criticized for not showing more emotion during news conferences on the Gulf oil spill in 2010 and the unrest in Ferguson, Mo., in 2014.

Mr. Obama’s flat affect seems to reflect both his natural demeanor (“I don’t get too high and I don’t get too low”) and a decision to avoid displays of emotion that aren’t politically effective. Consider the issue of police misconduct. He has signaled his private outrage over recent cases, telling BET, “I’ll leave it to people to speculate on what I’m saying to myself or Michelle when we’re alone at night.” But as he explained in a GQ interview: “Expressing simple outrage without follow-up is often counterproductive. In the case of Ferguson, I’m the attorney general’s boss. If I chime in with a strong opinion about what’s happened, not only do I stand to potentially damage subsequent law-enforcement cases, but immediately you get blowback and backlash that may make people less open to listening.”

In the cases when Mr. Obama has deviated from his usual strategy and has appeared more emotional in public, it has frequently been politically explosive (as with the Henry Louis Gates Jr. and Trayvon Martin cases) or unsuccessful (promoting gun control after the mass shootings at Sandy Hook and in Charleston). Displays of anger may be particularly fraught for Mr. Obama given his status as the first black president; research suggests that he already tends to polarize Americans along racial as well as partisan lines.

How much are we missing when the president won’t emote on cue? On the one hand, we should take symbolic representation seriously. It’s part of how elected leaders show that they share our values and can give voice to our feelings. People take great comfort in moments like President Reagan’s “surly bonds of earth” eulogy after the Challenger explosion, President Clinton’s speech at the Oklahoma City bombing memorial and George W. Bush’s bullhorn address to 9/11 rescue workers.

At the same time, we can’t presume to know what politicians actually think or feel; these are highly skilled performers who are strategic in the emotions that they choose to publicly display and can use these to distract and inflame us.

Moreover, we face the danger of confusing the symbolic expression of emotion with an effective policy response. Pounding the podium might be satisfying for viewers or reporters who want Mr. Obama to “kill the bastards,” but it won’t destroy ISIS.